Every traditionalist knows the event I'm talking about. He met with adoring seminarians from the FSSP--and instead of recognizing their devotion, he found fault. That was the turning-point for me. Up till then I thought, like most others, he must be sympathetic. Then it dawned on me--the problem was not with the middle echelon--it was with him.

I am a regular reader of this caucus, though I seldom post. I recognise your status as the >I>rebel in residence</I< and I have to say that, though I am often in disagreement with you, your comments frequently add some spice to the discourse.

In this case however,

>I< The vast majority of priests who said the Tridentine Mass prior to 1962 didn't understand one single word of what they were saying. </I<,

your assertion is pure b*lls. I come from a large UK family in which there were several priests and I do not recall one who could not have translated your above statement instantly into fluent Latin. They would also have made a better job of the syntax.

"I'd still lke to know why "The Catholic Herald" in the UK seems to be the only publication in the world to have this insider information."

The Catholic Herald has good links with the committee of the Latin Mass Society - the UK organisation affiliated to Una Voce. They have run a number of stories in the last couple of years which have been very supportive of traditionalists.

Also since the appointment of the LMS' new publicity officer, there seems to have been a tactical change in that they are now getting much more militant and using the Catholic press more efficiently to take the cause of tradition straight to the faithful.

I would guess that either the LMS has slipped the Catholic Herald some info. on current developments OR it could simply be the re-spinning of an older story to keep the pressure on.

IMHO one of the greatest successes of the modernists over traditional Catholicism in the last 40 years has been their ability to just ignore its existence and pretend that it's not there - especially in a country like ours where we don't have one single bishop of the calibre of Chaput, never mind the likes of Burke, Sheridan and Olmstead.

Every piece of positive publicity strengthens the hands of the friendly forces in the Vatican, and even though this next step may have no effect at all in most places, it may be one small step on the road back to sanity.

The passage you have cited is a gross misrepresentation of the key point I was making. The priests he was addressing had not invented any peculiar spiritual or liturgical practices. They celebrated the ancient Mass which had been handed-down to them from the Church. Everything they do and study was the tradition of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH until a few years ago. There is nothing that they do or teach or think that is other that what the Church had inspired for two thousand years up until recently when the Apostolic See itself chose to abandon Catholic Tradition. That is what is so alarming. It is the CHURCH'S OWN TRADITION, not a special charism peculiar to these priests, of which the Pope was speaking! The Pope dealt with this, however, as if it were something alien to him--and I can understand why. It would be--to a modernist.

For a long while I imagined it was the modernists who have held the Pontiff back all these years and prevented him from doing what I told myself he surely wanted to do--bring the Church back to Sacred Tradition. But now I see it is the other way around. It is the mass of traditionalists who hold him back--otherwise he would have lurched even more to the left than he has done already. He has already rejected the SSPX--though the Society's bishops made clear they did not challenge his legitimacy and would have obeyed--if it were possible for them, if obeying would not violate their consciences as Catholics and make them complicit in the destruction of Tradition. But he charged them with schism anyway--though no schism existed. It makes perfect sense that he should have done this to no others--but FAVORS the radical prelates instead, elevates them and gives them red hats. All this also explains why he says one thing and does another. He gives the faithful who long for a return to normalcy what it expects in writing, all the while moving the Church leftwards in practice.

JP II has granted to all of the FSSP's priests a universal "indult" to "celebrate" the Novus Ordo, anywhere, anytime, with permission required from no one: no superiors nor bishops need give their approval. A FSSP priest could offer nothing but the Novus Ordo Mass for the rest of his life, and be in good standing with JP II.

However, any Novus Ordo priest who wishes to offer the Tridentine Mass is at the mercy of his bishop.

It is obvious that JP II favors the Novus Mass and the continued supression of the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass of All Time.

There is nothing that they do or teach or think that is other that what the Church had inspired for two thousand years up

[Bishop Rifan:] Opposition towards the Holy See is each time more hard and more radical. Bishop Williamson has written that we should not offer public or official veneration to St. Padre Pio, in order not to give any credit to the canonizations made by the Pope. And Fr. Peter Scott, the rector in Australia, in his public letter of Nov. 1st 2002, wrote to friends and benefactors about the Luminous Mysteries proposed by the Pope: "I ask of you, if you wish to remain Catholic and if you wish to have a truly supernatural interior life, to not eve think of praying these mysteries."

In line with this directive, the most logical ones arrive at sedevacantism, like Fr. Basilo Meramo, prior of the SSPX in Bogota, who wrote: "The Pope, with his errors and his heresies, and with all manner of doctrinal and governing action, does not give the guarantee of being the legitimate successor of the Chair of Peter..." (La Nef, May 6 2003)

The magazine Guarde a Fe has published an article whose contents are alien to the Catholic faith; in this article, it is stated that today it is the Society of St. Pius X which posseses the essential and characteristic elements of the Church (unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity), and that what is called the official Church has lost these elements. What is the difference between the official Church and the visible Church?

The logical consequence of this article is that the Church of Our Lord has either ceased to exist, or it has been reduced to the Society of St. Pius X. But this has never been, and cannot be, Catholic doctrine. (Letter of the Apostolic Administration St. Jean-Marie Vianney, April 2003)

He has already rejected the SSPX

No, the SSPX rejected him.

complicit in the destruction of Tradition

I agree. Certainly regularizing the Society, giving them the approval of the Apostolic See, and consecrating a bishop for them would destroy Tradition. No wonder the Society had to refuse obedience to this evil command!

It is the CHURCH'S OWN TRADITION, not a special charism peculiar to these priests, of which the Pope was speaking!

In case you haven't noticed, the 1962 Missal is a "special charism" in the Catholic Church today, being a preceding form of the Roman Rite from the current Missal.

69
posted on 06/19/2004 11:15:24 AM PDT
by gbcdoj
(No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)

The Pope didn't grant them any "indult". All Latin-rite priests have a right to offer Mass according to the normative rite of the Church - the reformed rite of Paul VI, just as all Byzantine-rite priests have a right to offer according to the rite of St. John Chrysostom even if they've been granted a celebret for the 1962 Roman Missal.

70
posted on 06/19/2004 11:17:48 AM PDT
by gbcdoj
(No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)

All Latin-rite priests have a right to offer Mass according to the normative rite of the Church - the reformed rite of Paul VI

All Latin-rite priests, also have a right to offer The Tridentine Mass as codified by the Council of Trent and authorized by Pope Saint Pius X's , Bull Quo Primum. How does a "purely pastoral" council, VC II, trump a dogmatic council, Trent?

I come from a large UK family in which there were several priests and I do not recall one who could not have translated your above statement instantly into fluent Latin. They would also have made a better job of the syntax.

And, I've got anecdotal tales of pre-Vatican II priests who couldn't understand one word of Latin, after they left the seminary.

As to the syntax, perhaps you're right. British grammar goes a long way toward making up for the lousy food.

74
posted on 06/19/2004 11:57:09 AM PDT
by sinkspur
(There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)

The Council of Trent didn't "codify" the rite, but gave that task to St. Pius V, who promulgated the rite in an Apostolic Constitution 7 years after the Council closed. This rite was modified later by, for instance, Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution Maxima Redemptoris, which promulgated Bugnini's changes to the Holy Week liturgies.

How does a "purely pastoral" council, VC II, trump a dogmatic council, Trent?

For one thing, Trent didn't codify the Mass. At the end of Trent, all the different Western usages still existed. For another thing, unless you want to claim that Pius XII was wrong to change the rite with Maxima Redemptoris, it's clear that an Apostolic Constitution like Maxima Redemptoris or Missale Romanum can modify the rite promulgated by Quo Primum.

77
posted on 06/19/2004 12:15:46 PM PDT
by gbcdoj
(No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)

There's a difference between an FSSP priest being ALLOWED to concelebrate the Novus Ordo, and his being FORCED to concelebrate said Mass.

Read the article carefully. The infamous Protocol 1411 clearly violates the original agreement between the Vatican and the Fraternity, which guaranteed them the EXCLUSIVE use of the 1962 Missal. Remember that the FSSP was set up by the Pope in order to bring SSPX priests back to the fold. Because of the outrageous actions of 16 French priests, who were upset over the outcome of the Fraternity's general election, all FSSP priests may someday be REQUIRED to concelebrate the Novus Ordo by their bishops. Once this door is opened, there is no telling what additional requirements may be imposed on the Fraternity, such as an obligation to celebrate Sunday Masses in under-staffed parishes, for example. This will, IMO, be the death knell to the Fraternity, and a further disincentive for SSPX'ers to come back. Hey, come back to Rome and then get stabbed in the back.

And the Vatican's heavy-handed shakeup of the Fraternity, and its cancellation of their general chapter, sends the usual chilling message to traditionalists: "Watch your step, or we'll come down on you like an ton of bricks!"

Funny how apostates and heretics continue to flourish in our chanceries and "Catholic" colleges, while traditional Catholics set off a red alert if they so much as step out of line.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.